Annual Report of the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission for the year

Transcription

1 1 Annual Report of Karnataka State Human Rights Commission for year The Commission has submitted its annual reports, on time, for year , , and In action taken report sent to Legislature, along with se reports, reaction of Govt. has been collected from legislature. After examining report placed by Govt. before Legislature along with action taken report and action proposed to be taken on reports of Commission, Commission has expressed its opinion as follows: 2. Suitable accommodation is required for Commission from its working point of view, and to facilitate public to come directly and approach Commission. After considering request of Commission, it is stated that, if office of Commission is established in a far of place, n public will find it difficult to come all along way to Commission to file ir complaints and to express ir grievances. The Govt. has provided a total of 9,684 sq. ft. of accommodation in 5 th stage of M.S. building i.e. in a prime place. The Commission has requested Govt. to sanction entire 5 th stage of M.S. building for its office. If Govt. considers matter seriously, it can solve accommodation problem of Commission by shifting or offices located in 5 th Phase of M.S building and by allotting same to Commission. The Govt. has understood needs of Commission by differentiating between immediate needs / measures and permanent needs, and accordingly it is requested to provide entire 5 th phase of MS building to Commission. 3. While submitting its first annual report to State Legislature regarding actions taken by it, State Govt. has stated that it has kept in its mind posts existing in or Sate Human Rights Commissions and National Human Rights Commission. The number of complaints being receiving by Commission is increasing,

2 2 day to day and y are coming from different parts of state. In addition to this, re is an increase in suo-motu registered complaints also. The Law Department has expressed its views after observing posts existing in or states and in National Human Rights Commission. But, request has been made for sanctioning more number of posts required for of Commission. If sufficient posts are not re, it is not possible to investigate effectively into complaints received from different parts of State. The n Hon ble Law Minister has visited Commission on and he was convinced about requirements of Commission, such as accommodation, facilities, Cadre and recruitment Rules, Status of Chairperson and members and requirements of staff. The n Hon ble Law Minister has given clear instructions to strengn investigation of Commission on lines of Lokayukta, when he visited Commission. When Commission orders for investigation by considering seriousness of complaints received by Commission from different districts, IGP of Wing has to leave headquarters and visit or districts for conducting investigation, along with his assisting staff. This would cause waste of time and loss of competence of human resources. As said work is not possible by existing officers/staff, report is being sought from respective district officers; naturally re is a possibility that reports given by higher officers of accused officers are in favour of accused officers itself. Therefore, Commission has opined that instead of this, it is more suitable if investigation is done by officers of Commission. For this purpose it is proposed to establish an office of Commission at every district as was done by Lokayuktha Authority. Initally a proposal was submitted to Govt. to create 06 Police Range offices in State with a total posts of 210 (35 posts for each Range including assisting staff headed by Superintendent of police) on ``pilot basis.

3 3 4. Therefore, State Govt. has to take decision immediately by examining both investigation s existing in Lokayukta and in Commission. The Govt. has sanctioned 106 posts in total to Commission. In beginning, Commission had submitted a proposal to Govt. for sanctioning 491 various posts in total. Thereafter, in back drop of recommendation made by Committee of State Human Rights Commissions, constituted by National Human Rights Commission, a proposal has been submitted to Govt. for sanctioning 197 posts in total, including 106 posts which have already been sanctioned by Govt. This matter is under consideration of Government. 5. The State Human Rights Commission was constituted under Central Act. After observing Service Rules framed for Lokayukta, State Election Commission and Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, and Law Commission which were constituted by State Government itself, Service Rules, terms and conditions have to be framed. In this direction, to give necessary advice to State Government, Commission has drafted Rules, by keeping in mind rules prevailing in or states and in Central Govt., and has submitted same to Govt. If draft Rules submitted by Commission are accepted, n it is possible to resolve this problem completely. 6. To create awareness regarding human rights and its protection and to help victims of violation of human rights, Commission is functioning as follows Creating awareness in society by publishing books on human rights. The Chairperson and members of Commission tour all over State and resolve cases of violation of human rights by

4 4 examining cases locally and creating awareness among officers/officials and general Public. Creating awareness about human rights among students and teaching staff by conducting workshops/ meetings about human rights in universities. Encouraging non-governmental organisations to create awareness about human rights in society. To create awareness about human rights, every 2 nd and 4 th Friday, news regarding human rights is being telecasted in Bangalore Doordarshan for 10 minutes between 9.20pm to 9.30pm. Awareness is being created among Public by meaningfully celebrating Human Rights day on 10 th December, every year, which is being celebrated at international and National level. A state level meeting was held on to create awareness about violation of human rights and its protection with participation of voluntary Organisations and organisations which are working in field of Human Rights. All organisations which have participated in meeting have expressed ir appreciation about programme. Encouraging to conduct workshops, programmes/organise conferences to create awareness/consciousness through various universities/non-governmental organisations, such as Administrative Training Institute, Mysore, Karnataka Police Academy, Mysore, Abdul Nazir Sab State Institute of Rural Development, of state. The Commission is not only doing work of responding to sorrows/ sufferings of people of all strata of society, but also

5 5 extending its support to victims, by tracing cases of violation of Human Rights. 1. Appointment of Chairperson: As per recommendation made by Committee, constituted under section 22(1) of Human Rights Protection Act, 1993, to His Excellency Governor of Karnataka, by exercising its power, Governor of Karnataka has appointed Dr. S.R. Nayak, Retired Chief Justice of Chattisgarh High Court as Chairperson of Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, vide Notification No. Law 17 HRC 2005 dated Accordingly, Justice Dr. S.R. Nayak has assumed office on afternoon of and will be completing his 05 years tenure on Within that date His Excellency Governor of Karnataka has to appoint a Hon ble Chairperson. 2. Appointment of members of Commission: a) A Judge of State High Court or a retired Judge or a retired District Judge with a minimum seven years experience may be appointed as a member as per Section 21 (2)(b) of Protection of Human Rights Act, By considering this eligibility, in accordance with recommendation of committee constituted under section 22(1) of Act, His Excellency Governor of Karnataka had appointed Sri R.H. Raddi, Retired District Judge as a member of Commission, vide Notification No. 17 HRC 05 dated Sri R.H. Raddi assumed office on and he will be completing his tenure of 05 years on His Excellency Governor of Karnataka has to appoint a member before said date. b) As per section 21 (2)(c) of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 one having knowledge and practical experience regarding human rights shall be appointed as a member. By keeping this eligibility in mind and after obtaining recommendations of committee constituted

6 6 under section 22(1) of Act, His Excellency Governor of Karnataka had appointed Sri B. Parthasarathi, retired IAS Officer as a member of Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, vide Notification No:LAW 17 HRC 2005 dated Sri B.Parthasarathi had assumed Office on afternoon of and as he attained age of 70 years, as per provision of said Act, he has demitted office on His Excellency Governor of Karnataka has to appoint a member to fill up that vacant post,- 3. Appointment of Secretary: An Officer not below rank of a Secretary to State Govt. has to be appointed as Secretary of Commission as per Section 27 (1) (a) of Human Rights Protection Act, 1993.In Government Notification No. Law 20 LAG 05, dated it was ordered that a District and Sessions Judge of Karnataka Judicial Service may be appointed as Secretary to Commission. Accordingly, on Sri Javid Pasha, District and Sessions Judge who belongs to Karnataka Judicial Service was appointed as Secretary to Commission and he is retiring on superannuation on Inspector General of Police: Provision has been made in section 27 (1) (b) of Act to appoint an officer not below rank of an Inspector General of police, to head investigation team. After consulting Commission, Sri Mohammad Wazir Ahmad, IPS, was appointed as Inspector General of police, and he reported for duty on and rendered his service till Thereafter Sri Sunil Agarwal, IPS, is appointed as Inspector General of Police. He has reported for duty on and is continuing in Commission. For smooth functioning of Commission, it has been divided in to three s; y are a) Administration b) ; and c) Law. The Secretary of Commission is Chief Executive Officer (CEO),

7 7 and Law are working under Inspector General of Police and Registrar, respectively. 5. General: The State Government has sanctioned 106 posts and details of which are as follows: Sl. No. Designation of Post Sanctioned Posts Posts which are Filled up On deputation On Contract basis Vacant Posts A) Sanctioned posts as per order No. Law 20/LAG: 2005 dated Secretary to Commission PS to Chairperson Under Secretary Section Officer Senior Assistant Assistant Personal Assistants/ Stenographers 8 Junior Assistant Typists Drivers Dalayat/ Group `D Inspector General of Police Deputy Superintendent of Police 14 Head Constable Police Constable (Civil) APC (Orderly) Drivers (HCs/ PCs) Section Superintendent First Division Assistants Stenographers Typists Dalayat Total Posts

8 B) Sanctioned posts as per order No. Law 01/ HRS 2007, dated Deputy Secretary C) Sanctioned Posts as per order No. Law 59 HRC 2007 dated Court Officer Assistant Registrar Section Officers Public Relation Officers Total Posts D) Sanctioned Posts to be filled on basis of outsourcing as per letter No. Law 59 HRC 2008 dated Sweepers/ Scavengers/ Watchman 2 Home Orderly Total Posts E) Sanctioned Posts as per order No. Law 31 HRC 2008 dated Accountant Accounts Superintendent Total Posts F) Sanctioned Posts as per order No. Law 17 HRC 2010 dated Legal Assistant/ Research Assistant 2 Judgement Writer Assistant Jr.Assistant/Computer Operator / Typist Deputy Superintendent of Police 6 Sub Inspector of Police Head Constable Constable (Male Female) Jamedar/ Dalayat/ Orderly Total G) Sanctioned posts as per Order No. Law 64 HRC 2010 dated Assistant Librarian H) Sanctioned Posts as per order No. Law 24 HRC 2011 dated and amended Order dated Registrar Total

9 9 I) The posts which are created and recruited as per Section 27 (2) of Human Rights Protection Act, Presenting Officer Senior Assistants Assistants Stenographers Drivers Total Posts I. Administration Wing Grants provided to Commission The Commission had requested for a grant of Rs Lakhs during year , but a grant of Rs lakhs was sanctioned by Government. Out of that Commission has utilised Rs lakhs and has surrendered Rs.0.13 lakhs. Meetings of Commission In total Commission has taken 31 decisions in meetings held 5 times on follo dates: Sl.No. Date No. of Decisions : : : : : 05 Total 31

10 10 The details of annual accounts for year were placed before meeting held on and after getting approval of Commission same was sent to Accountant General on The Accountant General has conducted a detailed auditing of accounts from to and completed it as per section 35 of Human Rights Act, On The Accountant General has sent audit report along with certified accounts of commission. The Commission has given its approval to this report after thoroughly examining it in its meeting held on The said report was forwarded to Government and Accountant General on The said report and certified Annual Accounts were placed before Karnataka State Legislative Council and Karnataka State Legislative Assembly by Dept. of Law, Parliamentary Affairs and Human Rights on and , respectively. The Commission will be completing 5 years on and though cadre and recruitment Rules for Commission has been drafted and send to State Government, Cadre & Recruitment Rules are yet to be framed. The Commission has directly appointed retired officers of Judicial and or departments on contract basis. The employees who were appointed on contract basis and those appointed on deputation are working excellently. It is required to appoint employees as per C& R rules after y are framed. On Government has issued Karnataka State Human Rights Commission (Salaries, Allowances and or conditions of service of Chairperson and members) (Amendment) Rules, 2012 and provision has also been made to provide sumptuary allowance, Free Water and electricity facility, home orderly facility, gardener allowance, Newspaper and periodicals under rule 10-A with effect from

11 11 II Law Wing 1. During year under report, 8031 complaints were registered, out of which 656 complaints are suomotu cases. At end of , 9135 complaints were pending before Commission. In this year, 17,166 cases are re including 8031 registered cases. The Commission had disposed 6194 cases and cases were pending. As it has been already brought to kind notice of State Legislature, Commission is follo procedure of registering suo-motu cases on basis of reports of electronic and press media. Moreover, Commission is also taking cognizance of important and sensitive incidents. As a result, Commission has taken up suo-motu cases of public interest issues. 2. The subject matter of few important cases voluntarily taken up by Commission during reporting year is as follows: A) Negligence of doctors and hospital management (Negligence). B) Human sacrifice for self-attainment C) Moral policing by few voluntary organisations D) Incidents of rape on children (by a Citizen of France) E) Murder of a Govt. Servant in broad day light F) Annoyance caused by Stray dogs in cities and or districts. G) Waste disposal Problems of BBMP H) Illegal confinement of Nepali citizens by local police I) Disorder existing at Rehabilitation centers for addicts J) Madesnanam etc.

12 12 3. The Commission is having its own investigation. The is headed by police officer of IPS Cadre not below rank of IGP, to conduct enquiry with help and assistance of enquiry staff, such as DSP, Sub Inspector, H.C. and P.C. and submits its report to Commission for its consideration. Or than report of investigation, Commission is also calling for reports/ compliance report from various Heads of departments. As has been said, in reports of previous years where nobody came forward to submit complaints regarding matter of public importance, Commission has been giving more emphasis to suomotu cases. In such cases, Commission comes to a conclusion by investigating independently by its own. In this regard, Commission is facing dearth of essential staff. The stand of government is that, posts were sanctioned, by keeping in mind pattern followed by Human Rights Commissions of or states. It would not become irrelevant if it is stated here that post of Presenting Officer is not yet sanctioned as existing in National Human Rights Commission. 4. Some guidelines were formulated in committee meeting of State Human Rights Commissions (a committee constituted by National Human Rights Commission to examine various points) held in New Delhi on and it has recommended to establish 4 s in every State Human Rights Commission. They are - Administration Wing, Law Wing, Wing and Training-and-Research Wing. Except Training-and-Research Wing, remaining 3 Wings are existing in State Commission. 5. Statistics of Complaints received, disposed off and pending during period under report:-

13 Sl. NO. 13 STATEMENT SHOWING DISTRICTWISE RECEIPTS, DISPOSALS AND PENDENCY OF COMPLAINTS FROM APRIL 2011 TO MARCH 2012 ( ) Name of Districts Complaints ending as on ( ) Complaints received from April to March ( ) Total of col. 3 & 4 Complaints disposed off from April 2011 to March ( ) Complaints Pending as on ) Bangalore Bangalore Rural Bellary Belgaum Bagalkote Bijapur Bidar Chitradurga Chikmagalur Chikkaballapur Chamarajanagar Davangere Dharwad Dakshina Gadag Gulbarga Hassan Haveri Kolar Koppal Kodagu Mysore Mandya Raichur Ramanagar Shimoga Tumkur Uttara Kannada Udupi Yadgir Total

14 preliminary Stage. Considered Orders preliminary Stage. Considered Orders preliminary Stage. Considered Orders preliminary Stage. Considered Orders preliminary Stage. Considered Orders preliminary Stage. Considered Orders Total No. of complaints disposed off (Total of 4 to 15) 14 KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, BANGALORE STATEMENT SHOWING THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS/CASES REGISTERED, DISPOSED OFF AND PENDING DURING THE MONTHS April-2011 to March-2012 General Complaints No. of complaints disposed off by: Total DB-1 No: of DB-2 FB-1 (1+2) SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 col. (2+3) (1+3) 1 & 2 No. of complainants pending on last day of previous month No.of complaint s registered during this month No.of complaints pending {3 minus 16} April (O/B) May June July August September October November December January February March Total Grand Total

15 preliminary Stage. Considered Orders preliminary Stage. Considered Orders preliminary Stage. Considered Orders preliminary Stage. Considered Orders preliminary Stage. Considered Orders preliminary Stage. Considered Orders Total No. of complaints disposed off (Total of 4 to 15) 15 KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, BANGALORE STATEMENT SHOWING THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS/CASES REGISTERED, DISPOSED OFF AND PENDING DURING THE MONTHS April-2011 to March-2012 Suo-moto No. of complainants pending on last day of previous month No.of complaint s registered during this month Total No: of col. 1 & 2 FB-1 DB-1 (1+2) (1+3) No. of complaints disposed of by: DB-2 (2+3) SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 No.of complaints pending {3 minus 16} April (O/B) May June July August September October November December January February March Total Grand Total

16 preliminary Stage. Considered Orders preliminary Stage. Considered Orders preliminary Stage. Considered Orders preliminary Stage. Considered Orders preliminary Stage. Considered Orders preliminary Stage. Considered Orders Total No. of complaints disposed off (Total of 4 to 15) No. of complainants pending on last day of previous month 16 KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, BANGALORE STATEMENT SHOWING THE NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS/CASES REGISTERED, DISPOSED OFF AND PENDING DURING THE MONTHS April-2011 to March-2012 (Consolidated) No.of No. of complaints disposed of by: complaint Total DB-1 s No: of DB-2 FB-1 (1+2) SB-1 SB-2 SB-3 registered col. (2+3) (1+3) during 1 & 2 this month No.of complaints pending {3 minus 16} April (O/B) May June July August September October November December January Febuary March Total Grand Total

17 17 ABSTRACT Total Receipts and Disposals during Receipts Disposals Pending Complaints registered during Complaints disposed off during Pending as on Total Pending as on General Suo-moto Total (1+2) General Suo-moto Total Pending (4+5) *Gen.1725 **SM Total *(1-4) **(2-5)

18 18 6) Some of important cases in which orders passed during year HRC No: 6711/09 to 6728/09 and connected matters (Regarding demolition of Kalasipalayam Bus Stand): Sri Lokesh Kumar and 27 ors claiming to be tenants of certain shop premises of BBMP at Kalasipalayam Bus Stand filed a complaint before this Commission alleging that on BBMP officials and police personnel unauthorisedly evicted m from ir shop premises in block No-6 and demolished said leased premises. They furr alleged that no notice or order of any authority or court is served on m before evicting m and demolishing leased premises. They say that y have paid rents regularly to BBMP in respect of leased premises. Though y opposed illegal arbitrary and dictatorial act of BBMP and police, y were shunted out by threat. They have no source of income for ir livelihood. On said complaint, a report was called from Commissioner, BBMP who in turn submitted a report on It is stated rein that on , Commissioner BBMP directed to remove shops and widen road and footpath. There were 116 shops in Kalasipalyam bus stand which were leased to m for carrying out various types of business on basis of monthly rent, for a period of 3years about 40years ago and an agreement was also executed to that effect. Among m, 34 persons were unauthorizedly doing business by erecting temporary sheds and all 116 shopkeepers had no license or permit. The BBMP furr stated that with avowed object of providing best facilities to citizens of Bangalore, such an action had been taken. The said report was given to complainants for offering comments. In ir comments, y stated that BBMP has taken decision unilaterally without any notice to occupants eir before demolition

19 19 or after demolition and without any recourse to law. The complainants are in occupation of shops allotted to m even before enactment of Corporation Act. The complainants relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in case of UP State, Vs. Maharaj Dharmender Prasad Singh and stated that a lessee cannot be disposed of orwise than by due process of law. On careful consideration of material on record Commission passed an interim order on 24 th December Which reads as follows: It is clearly established that complainants were not unauthorized occupants of shop premises at Kalasipalyam bus stand as contended by BBMP. Admittedly, no notice was issued to shop-keepers/complainants before demolishing ir shop premises. These shop keepers are poor small businessmen and eke out livelihood by doing petty business. It appears that action taken by BBMP authorities in demolishing shop premises in Kalasipalyam bus stand area without notice to complainants is arbitrary, illegal, and not in accordance with law. In view of above findings, Commissioner, BBMP was asked to appear before Commission in terms of section 16 of Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 for hearing and enquiry etc. on Asst. Law Officer of BBMP submitted a report stating that allegations made in complaint are false, baseless, since re was no relationship of landlord and tenant between complainants and BBMP at any time and y were not in possession of any of shops in question etc.. This statement of Law Officer of BBMP was contradicted by complainants and stated that by virtue of order passed by a Civil Court in Misc. No. 359/84, it is held that petitioners were in occupation of premises in question as tenants. After considering entire material on record, Commission on

20 in exercise of power conferred on it under section 18 of Act, directed Commissioner, BBMP as under: (i) To pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- each to complainants for illegalities committed against m by officials of BBMP. (ii) To provide alternative shop premises elsewhere or in shopping complex to be constructed in disputed site, and (iii) Action Taken Report shall be submitted to Commission within two months from date of receipt of this Order. With above direction, HRC NO. 6711/2009 to 6728/2009 and connected matters are disposed off. 2. HRC No: 4097/09, 268/11, 210/SM-36/11 and connected cases (regarding ill effects and health problems on account of Endosulfan) Sri Balakrishna Rai, President, Human Rights Federation of India, Mangalore lodged complaint about ill effects and medical problems on account of use of Endosulphan. Subsequently, innumerable reports appeared in press highlighting ill effects of use of endosulfan which were also registered as suo-moto cases and matter was taken up for investigation. The written complaint of Sri Balakrishana Rai reads as follows: ``Most of people in Belthangadi area of Dakshina Kannada District in Karnataka are suffering from various diseases on account of use of endosulphan pesticide for protection of cashew nut crop. The Government had given assurance of providing compensation to victims who were living as destitute in many

21 21 ways and have become helplessness in society by losing ir right to live and right to health, due to this deadly endosulphan. But re is no information as to wher victims have received compensation or not? No correct information regarding this has been released. Therefore, re is need of doing investigation by Commission regarding this matter during ir next visit to D.K by meeting victims of endosulphan and also as to wher distribution of compensation has been done properly, after calling report with regard to this. I hereby pray Hon ble chairperson of Commission to console affected families through providing suitable compensation to unfortunate victims who lost ir right to health and right to live in direction of preventing violation of human rights and also requesting you to direct Govt. to issue an order of prohibiting endosulphan. What is alleged in complaint of Sri Balakrishna Rai and what is highlighted in press is that many villagers in villages of Dakshina Kannada Dist. where Endosulfan is used for spraying are suffering from chronic health problems ranging from neurological disorders to congenital deformities, Allergy, Asthma, Stillborn, Brain Tumor, Hemiplegia, Leg deformity, Mental disorders, deafness, dumbness, Epilepsy, Blindness, Fits, Heart disease, Joint swelling, Liver, Pulmonary, Sterility, Thyroid, psychological disorders, different types of cancers, lung diseases, intestinal disorders, kidney problem etc. Despite se problems, Government of Karnataka and Government of India have not banned use of Endosulfan which is not only harmful to human beings but it is also highly toxic to fish, birds, fowl, bees and wildlife etc., The Commission has taken cognizance of complaint of Sri. K. Balakrishna Rai issued notices to Chief Secretary to

22 22 Government of Karnataka, Deputy Commissioner of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi Dist to submit response/report with regard to grievance of local people where endosulfan was being used as a pesticide. The Chief Secretary of State submitted his report enclosing a copy of letter of Chief Minister addressed to Union Minister for Agriculture. The Deputy Commissioner, Udupi Dist. stated that district administration, at no point of time received any complaint with regard to health problem on account of use of endosulfan as a pesticide. In Kokkada Patrame, Mallige, Maharu villages of Belthangadi Taluk children are suffering from physical deformity, mental imbalance etc. The affected people are demanding compensation from State Government. Consequently, it is stated that a total sum of Rs. 104,00,000/- has been distributed in Dakshina Kannda Dist. The victims have also been granted disability certificate, to enable m to seek employment and compensation under scheme sponsored by State. The victims were also paid ex gratia. In addition, it is stated that under guidance of Darmadhikari of Sri Kshetra Darmastala, a rehabilitation centre is proposed to be established in Kokkada village for which land has already been identified; for which Government has also released sum of Rs.25,00,000/-. The Dakshina Kannada Dist administration has also proposed to start a day care centre for victims appointing Tahasildhar of Belthangadi Taluk as Nodal Officer to monitor centre and project. It is brought to notice of Commission that issue about harmful effect of use of endosulfan is already seized by National Human Rights Commission which has issued number of directions to Government of India to redress grievance of local people. Follo

23 23 directions of NHRC, Kerala Government has already prohibited use of Endosulfan in that State. The Commission has taken judicial notice of fact that issue brought before this Commission is also seized by High Court of Karnataka as well as Hon ble Supreme Court of India. In view of what is stated above, Commission felt that re is no need for this Commission to express any opinion on legal and constitutional issues that arise for decision-making, because very issues are already seized by NHRC as well as Hon ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon ble Supreme Court of India in view of bar contained in regulation (9) of KSHRC Regulations. Be that as it may, Commission on opined that it is duty of state to adequately compensate victim and members of families and also do everything at ir command to rehabilitate m properly. With above recommendations all se cases are disposed of with directions to concerned authority to submit action taken report within a month from date of receipt of this order. 3) HRC No: 4435/09 (Regarding abuse and harassment by police etc.,) The Complainant Sri Veerendra Babu lodged complaint against Sri. Ashok, Inspector of Police, Amruthhalli Police Station, Bangalore and one Sri Munegowda, Proprietor of Pragathi Chicken/Birds supplier, Jakkur village in Yelhanka Hobli alleging that he had been abused, ill-treated and harassed by m. The complainant is carrying on his business in chicken processing under name and style Global Ready Chicken at Addevishwanathpura Village near Rajankunte in Banaglore North Taluk. On account of strained relationship between him and Sri Munegowda, due to breach of contract, Munegowda use to come with certain rowdy elements to business place of

24 24 complainant and abuse in filthy language and also threaten him with dire consequences. It is on account of this, he made a complaint to Yelhanka New Town Police Station against Sri Munegowda on Subsequently, Sri Munegowda also lodged a false and baseless complaint before Amruthahalli police station as a counter complaint. On basis of complaint, inspector of police Sri Ashok sent a constable to secure complainant. When complainant was in Yelhanka New Town Police Station about 3-00pm waiting for Sri Munegowda, a constable of Amruthahalli police station came re and asked him to accompany him to Amruthahalli police station in order to settle dispute. When complainant entered Police Station Inspector of Police, Sri Ashok was sitting along with Munegowda and his supporters. Soon after he entered Police Station, Sri Ashok started shouting at him in vulgar language and made an attempt to kick him with shoes. The complainant was made to sit on ground and was not allowed to speak a single word. Again inspector Sri Ashok scolded him in harsh and vulgar language which caused mental torture and shock to complainant. In meanwhile, Sri Munegowda prepared a document in Kannada on which Sub Inspector of Police and Sri Ashok forcibly took a signature of complainant. The complainant being a Telugu speaking man, he does not know what was written in Kannada on paper on which his signature was taken. It is on account of this, complainant was lodged before this Commission contending that his right to freedom has been violated by inspector of police Sri Ashok and said Sri Munegowda and sought suitable action against said police Inspector. On registering complainant same was referred to Wing of this Commission headed by Inspector General of Police, who after making enquiry, submitted his report. After perusal of complaint, report of Inspector General of Police and documents furnished, it is revealed that re was business

25 25 transaction between complainant and Sri Munegowda in respect of supply of chicken and that complainant owed some amount to Sri Munegowda in this business transaction. On consideration of entire material on record, Commission came to conclusion that Inspector Sri Ashok has summoned complainant without issuing notice to him, and thus he has failed to follow due process of Law and reby violated liberty and dignity of complainant. The police inspector is also guilty of committing number of crimes punishable under Indian Penal Code. The complainant was subjected to mental and physical torture reby violating human rights and consequently Sri Ashok Inspector of Police Amruthahalli Police Station was made accountable for his objectionable and culpable conduct. In view of detailed discussion and enquiries and in exercise of power conferred to Commission under section 18-E of protection of Human Rights Act., Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City was directed on by Commission as follows: i) To Register a crime against Sri Ashok, Inspector of Police, Amruthahalli police station on basis of complaint lodged by complainant before this Commission and his statement recorded by Commission on in course of enquiry, for commission of offences committed by him punishable under Indian Penal Code; ii) To initiate Departmental relevant service rules; Enquiry against him under iii) To pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only to complainant as compensation for violation of his human rights by Sri Ashok, Inspector of Police, Amruthahalli Police Station, within a month from date of receipt of this Order. The money so paid as

26 26 compensation may be recovered from salary of Sri Ashok, Inspector of Police, Amruthahalli Police Station iv) The action taken report in pursuance of se directions be submitted to Commission within two months from date of receipt of order. The Complaint was disposed off accordingly with above directions Compliance/Action Taken report is awaited. 4. HRC No:966/08 (Regarding setting up of special economic zones-sez in Mangalore): The Krishi Bhomi Samrakshana Samiti, Mangalore has filed a complaint before this Commission taking strong exceptions to proposed acquisition of lands for setting up of special economic zones (SEZ) in Mangalore for establishing Petro Chemical Industries. The complainant alleges that lands proposed for acquisition are highly productive and in case of acquisition agriculturists who are depending on se agricultural lands would become destitute. The Industries proposed under SEZ would also pollute environment creating health hazards. It is also complained that proposed Mega Industries are unsuitable for ecologically fragile and sensitive region as concluded by earlier studies by Government itself. The Commission after taking note of complaint directed an enquiry by Principal Secretary to Government, Commerce & Industries Department and Managing Director, KIADB, Bangalore to submit ir reports. Both Departments appear to have interacted with one anor and submitted a common report through KIADB. The said report discloses that concept of a large SEZ in Dakshina Kannada Dist was mooted by local people mselves way back in The Costal Agenda Task Force consisting of representatives of

27 27 trade and industry and District Administration have examined issue of having multi-product SEZ near Mangalore. Consequently, Kanara Chamber of Commerce & Industry (KCCI) approached Government of India and obtained approval of Ministry of Commerce in principle. Subsequently, ONGC and State Government through KIADB joined this initiative and a SPV named Mangalore SEZ limited was formed with objective of establishing multi-product SEZ. As on date 1907 Acres of land had already been acquired without protest. In addition to that 2035 Acres of land is also under acquisition proceedings for above said purpose. The report discloses that a comprehensive R &R package has been evolved with approval of State Government in respect of project displaced families of Mangalore SEZ project. As per report around 77% of land proposed to be acquired is not fit for cultivation and consists of literite soil, hilly slopes with scrub land and abandoned quarries etc.. The total agricultural land proposed to be acquired is only 23% of which less than 5% is prime agriculture land, while anor 3.5% is horticultural land etc.. It is reported that re has been no violation of human rights in land acquisition process followed by KIADB/MSEZ till date etc.. The complainant samiti has sent false statistics and flawed reports that are completely far from truth. The experts committee has recommended for environmental clearance, MOEF Committee visited area twice before giving environmental clearance. The SEZ has also proposed various mitigation measures which have been approved by MOEF/KSPCB. Lastly, it is stated that several land owners in said acquisition of 2035 acres of land which is under considerations have already approached Mangalore SEZ and have expressed ir willingness to part with ir lands. When report was forwarded to complainants, complainant stated that total extent of land required for Mangalore SEZ location and nature of industries multi-product SEZ are not disclosed, reby public or than stake holders were kept in total darkness regarding details of project. The R &R packages have been arrived in consultation

28 28 with only a few influential persons of first phase of land acquisition. The complainant furr contended that an appropriate scientific study by an unbiased agency would bring out truth regarding fertility of agricultural lands, its potential to grow perennial crops etc.. The Commission after going through report and comments offered by complainant and also material available on record, recommended to Government on as under: I) To appoint a Competent Agency to make appropriate scientific study before proceeding with proposed project. II) To consider fertility of lands and also environmental issues involved in project. With above recommendations complaint was disposed of with a furr direction to submit action taken report within one month. 5. HRC No: 380/SM-09 (Regarding collapse of building at EWS Quarters at Koramangala) This is a Suo-motu case registered on basis of publication in issues of various newspapers which is widely reported about collapse of EWS Quarters Building at Koramagala on killing two children and injuring 7 anors. It is reported that blocks of houses were completed in year 1991 and in very year of allotment houses developed cracks and a technical study of Torsteel Research Foundation suggested major repairs. Again in November 2003, block No. 13 collapsed and again Torsteel Research Foundation on re-examination of building, suggested demolition and reconstruction of 21 blocks and repair of 21 ors. Prima facie, it looks as if construction of blocks was defective and that defective construction led to avoidable tragedy resulting in death of two children and injuring seven ors. Furrmore, it is said that if officials of BBMP had demolished building soon after

29 29 residents were evacuated, tragedy would have been prevented. After going through publication, Commission issued notice to Commissioner BBMP with direction to submit a detailed report as to: 1) Wher blocks of houses constructed by B.B.M.P. was defective, and if so, who are responsible for defects and wher any action is taken against officials responsible for defective construction? 2) Why buildings in question were not demolished soon after residents were evacuated and wher re was any justifiable grounds not to do so, and if so, wher concerned officers had taken precautionary measures to prevent children and or innocent people from entering into defective building and if re is any lapse on part of Officers/officials responsible for same? In response to notice issued to B.B.M.P, Commissioner, BBMP has submitted his report dated In paras 3 to 17 of said report it is stated thus: 3. It is to submit that BBMP had taken loan from HUDCO for purpose of construction of multistoried residential apartments in Ward No. 69 for purpose of distributing same to Economically Weaker Sections. 42 blocks were constructed consisting of 1512 residential apartments. A sum of Rs lakhs was spent for purpose of construction and supply of basic amenities out of which contribution of HUDCO was Rs lakhs. After construction work was over, n Council of BBMP had resolved to identify beneficiaries and resolution was passed to charge a sum of Rs. 50, for apartments in 1 st Floor & Rs.49, for apartments in 2 nd Floor.

30 30 A condition had been imposed on beneficiaries to pay amount in 156 equal monthly installments with interest at 11.5% per annum in 13 years. Apart from this, follo conditions had also been imposed. 1) The installments have to be paid to B.B.M.P. before 10 th of each month. 2) In case beneficiaries/allotees fail to pay installments for 3 months and above, ir right over property gets extinguished. 3) The beneficiaries mselves have to get repairs effected to ir residential apartments. In addition to above BBMP stated in great detail on various or things in support of its stand, including matter of filing writ petitions by various persons challenging action taken by BBMP. The Commission came to conclusion that report of Commissioner, BBMP is quite lengthy but at same time it is not convincing. After careful consideration of entire report, Commission found missing links in chain of events, and ultimately came to conclusion that it is a clear case of maladministration on part of BBMP. After going through entire material on record, Commission came to conclusion that Commissioner, BBMP has not offered any satisfactory and acceptable explanation to satisfy Commission that concerned officers of BBMP had taken precautionary measures to prevent children and or innocent people from entering in to defective building. Strictly speaking, re is no explanation at all to this specific query made by Commission at point No.2 in its order dated In that view of matter, Commission thought it just and fair for BBMP authorities to pay reasonable compensation to parents of diseased children.

31 31 As a result, for reasons discussed in great detail on , Commission in exercise of power conferred on it under section 18(e) of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 opined that all those serving officers who are responsible for not implementing recommendations of M/S Torsteel Research Foundation made in year 1991 and 2003 referred to in paras 4 and 6 of report of Commission shall be dealt with under relevant service rules to fix ir accountability. Furr, Commissioner, BBMP, is directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs only) each to parents of two children killed in accident within a month. The compensation, if any, already paid to parents of deceased children may be adjusted towards Rs.3,00,000/-(three lakhs only). The Commissioner, BBMP, is directed to send a compliance report within two months from date of receipt of notice. HRC No: 380/ SM-9/2007 is disposed of in above terms. 6. HRC No: 3437/2009 (regarding rearing of pigs-a nuisance): It is a complaint by Smt. Janet Pinto W/o Late Terrence Pinto of Mangalore against City Corporation Mangalore, regarding rearing of Pigs by one Mr. Clifford Fernandez which is causing much nuisance and inconvenience to residents of that locality. On said complaint, a notice was issued to corporation to close down pig rearing on or before but till date of delivery of this Judgment, no action has been taken by Corporation. The complainant says that she had approached Corporation many times complaining against spreading of epidemic and or serious disease on account of pig rearing; whereas Corporation has not bored to look into this serious issue which has caused direct adverse impact on human life. On said complaint, Commission called for a response from Mangalore City Corporation. In response to notice issued to Corporation, Corporation inter-alia submitted that health officers of

32 32 Corporation inspected pig rearing area and found that it was detrimental to hygienic conditions of general public and ultimately recommended for vacating said pig rearing centre. Based on that recommendations, a notice was served on Mr. Clifford Farnandes to vacate said area, but he refused to honor said direction. After much correspondence, said Cliffored Fernandes filed a writ petition before High Court of Karnataka against Corporation challenging eviction notice which is still pending. It is stated that soon after disposal of that writ petition, action will be taken for eviction of pig rearing centre. On or hand complainant in her comments said that since High Court has not granted any stay on writ petition, re was no impediment for corporation to go ahead with process of vacating pig rearing centre. She furr stated that Commissioner, MCC Mangalore is misusing his office by issuing permission to Clifford Farnandes to open pig rearing centre on Thereafter complainant furnished copy of Judgment passed in writ petition No /2009 filed by Mr. Clifford Fernandez dismissing writ petition. As such, re is no legal impediment for Corporation to close pig rearing centre. After considering entire material on record and documents, including judgment of High Court in Writ Petition No.14624/2009 that re is more than justification for Corporation of city of Mangalore to direct owner of pig rearing center to close down piggery. Ultimately under power-vested under section 18(e) of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, Commissioner, Corporation of City of Mangalore, was directed by Commission on to close down piggery in question immediately, if not already done. The action taken report shall be sent to Commission within one month from date of receipt of this order. HRC No.3437/2009 disposed of accordingly.